PAUL DAECHE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT BOLLSCHWEILER, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, ETC.

U.S. | 1916-02-21
No. 794
241 U.S. 641 Supreme Court of the United States (1916) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288; Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178, 184; (2) Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 10-11; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 401-402; (3) Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S. 219.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • New York v. Bezue, 284 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1932)
    …d therein. But we have held that the mere fact of employment does not bring such employees within the Act. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Cousins, 241 U. S. 641; New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, 192; Industrial Accident Comm. v. [*420] Davis, 259 U. S. 182, 187; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Bolle, ante, p. 74. The criterion of applicability of the statute is the employee’s occupation at the t…
  • Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1931)
    …sions. In Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Harrington, supra, an employee engaged in placing coal in coal chutes, thence to be supplied to locomotives engaged in interstate traffic, was held not to have met the test. In Illinois Central R. Co. v. Cousins, 241 U. S. 641, as appears from the decision of the state court (126 Minn. 172; 148 N. W. 68), an employee was engaged in wheeling a barrow of coal to heat the shop in which other employees were at work repairing cars that had been, and were to be, used in interst…
  • Metzger v. W. Md. Ry. Co., 30 F.2d 50 (4th Cir. 1929)
    …, 242 U. S. 303, 37 S. Ct. 116, 61 L. Ed. 319; Ill. C. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473, 34 S. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163; D., L. & W. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; 35 S. Ct. 902, 59 L. Ed. 1397; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Cousins, 241 U. S. 641, 36 S. Ct. 446, 60 L. Ed. 1236. And we think, also, that defendant is not liable under the statute for the negligence of the physician, for the reason that the physician is not an “officer, agent or employee,” for whose negligence the company is ma…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw